Emancipation Proclamation Frees All Slaves
- Thread starter YamSeng
- Start date
Immediately the Emancipation Proclamation will be rendered unconstitutional. It was already extending the meaning of "war powers" significantly, so I think that if such an error occurred, the Proclamation would be rendered null and void.
As stated by Divergent54, the border states probably jump a little, and it *is* possible that some particularly hardline reactionaries in those states may defect to the Confederate side. That said, however, the Supreme Court is unlikely to overrule President Lincoln, and, perhaps, may not even *try* to do so; Northern public opinion at that time would not have been favorable to such a decision then, even if the situation might have been fairly different just a few years earlier.
So lets say the Supreme Court doesnt object; and hardliners in the border states defect to the Confederacy, say one of the states actually secedes, either Kentucky or Missouri, what happen?
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court challenges it, how would Lincoln being on trial effect the war effort?
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court challenges it, how would Lincoln being on trial effect the war effort?
Although I don't think either Kentucky or Missouri would have been at all likely to secede at that point.....if they did? Well, let's just say it'd definitely provide more ammo for the Union war effort, including in terms of messaging.
And on the off chance that the Supreme Court does challenge it? I've no doubt in my mind that although certain people, like Clement Vallandigham for instance, would be all too happy to take advantage of that, I can't see a lot of patriotic Unionists being too happy with the Court.
Massive omnishambles, the president has just instituted rule by decree in the US and threatened martial law to enforce it.
The point of the EP was it took effect only in areas where the federal writ was not effective. Be loyal or else, the implications for slavery in loyal areas are bleeding obvious though.
The point of the EP was it took effect only in areas where the federal writ was not effective. Be loyal or else, the implications for slavery in loyal areas are bleeding obvious though.
The Taney Court will be on such an EP like white on rice, there's no way they're not going to object. You may just have yourself a constitutional crisis. Maybe Lincoln declares himself Dictator. That'd be a timeline.
Not to mention that Lincoln's war powers only existed in lands not controlled by the US.
If Lincoln is not stopped from doing this, it creates a dangerous precedent of presidential rule by decree.
How would Lincoln go on trial? If the SC declared this more expansive Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional Lincoln has two options: (1) more likely - withdraw it and come up with one that better fits the constitution, ie: OTL's proclamation, or (2) slightly less likely - ignore the supreme court. It wouldn't be the first time an executive ignored an SC ruling and the likelihood that the US Congress would institute impeachment proceedings against him on this basis during a civil war is very small.
They couldn't. They were full of Union troops. All that would have happened would be that some state legislators got arrested and packed off to Ft Lafayette..
The thing about the Emancipation Proclamation is that Lincoln had no authority to free the slaves in the Border States. If he did, then why bother with the 13th Amendment? Because the Confederate States were in rebellion/at war with the U.S. government, then Lincoln, as Commander-in-Chief, had the authority (arguably) to declare enemy property contraband and confiscate it. But because the border states were not engaging in an armed insurrection against the U.S., Lincoln had no authority to confiscate their property. So the EP pretty much had to be limited to the Confederate States.
No, it would not. The courts found many of Lincoln's wartime acts to be unconstitutional. But that was all after hostilities had ceased.
Who will sue? Perhaps someone in the border states, but they're under martial law, and the civilian courts aren't in cession. The federal government must permit itself to be sued, and in cases like insurrection or war, it can suspend these proceedings just like it can suspend habeas corpus.
If he sets the precedent of ruling by decree, and lets say Missouri seceded only to have its legislature packed up BUT enough to start enough of a problem to force Union troops to be moved there, which in turn causes Lincoln to issue more Presidential decrees, maybe crushing the Confederacy a bit later in 1866.
With this precedent of many Presidential decrees, could Lincoln, assuming he gets the inspiration to, start to rule as a dictator?
Lincoln was devoted to American democracy. He would never rule as a dictator. Maybe his war decrees would be somewhat dictatorial, but Lincoln would not intentionally rule as one; such decrees would have to be justified in his mind.
Saphroneth
Banned
At least one escaped slave mid-war was returned to his master in the Union because he was loyal to the Union.
So... there was not yet a consensus that slavery should be ended. Just that property belonging to rebels should be confiscated and "destroyed" (i.e. rendered not property).
That it took two years to decide even on that shows that the attitude change in the Civil War was quick and complete... but that it took four years to do.
So... there was not yet a consensus that slavery should be ended. Just that property belonging to rebels should be confiscated and "destroyed" (i.e. rendered not property).
That it took two years to decide even on that shows that the attitude change in the Civil War was quick and complete... but that it took four years to do.
So it would be legally dubious, and it wouldn't blunt the reaction in the border states.
Someone who would suspend habeas corpus isn't devoted to democracy. Maybe the idea of democracy but not the rule of law on which it depends.
And as for a dictatorship being justified in his mind, which dictator hasn't been? As a wise man once said, man isn't a rational animal, he's a rationalising one. Our capacity for self-justification is limitless.